↓ Skip to main content

Foraging modes of Mesozoic birds and non-avian theropods

Overview of attention for article published in Current Biology, November 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
wikipedia
7 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Foraging modes of Mesozoic birds and non-avian theropods
Published in
Current Biology, November 2007
DOI 10.1016/j.cub.2007.09.026
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher L. Glen, Michael B. Bennett

Abstract

The origin and early evolution of birds has been a major topic in evolutionary biology. In the 20th century, evolutionary scenarios posited either ground-based bird ancestors or tree-dwelling ancestors. This has since been recognised as a false dichotomy [1]. We suggest that part of the problem is the loose categorisation of many extant bird species as either ground or tree locomotors when considering hind-limb function [2-7]. In reality these are not mutually exclusive alternatives. Many extant birds exhibit different degrees of ground- and tree-based behaviours. We thus propose they can be better placed on a spectrum - rather than a dichotomy - according to the extent of ground and/or tree foraging they exhibit. To test this system we analysed the toe claws of 249 species of Holocene birds, revealing that claw curvature increases as tree foraging becomes more predominant. Improved claw morphometrics allow more direct comparisons between extant and extinct birds in order to infer the behaviours of the latter. In contrast to previous studies [2-6], we find that claw curvatures of Mesozoic birds and closely related non-avian theropod dinosaurs, differ significantly from Holocene arboreal birds and more closely resemble those of Holocene 'ground-foraging' birds.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 3%
United Kingdom 2 3%
United States 2 3%
Italy 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
New Zealand 1 1%
Unknown 64 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 31%
Researcher 15 20%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Master 5 7%
Professor 4 5%
Other 15 20%
Unknown 6 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 40 53%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 19 25%
Environmental Science 4 5%
Engineering 3 4%
Computer Science 1 1%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 6 8%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 July 2022.
All research outputs
#2,863,757
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Current Biology
#5,712
of 14,673 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,053
of 89,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Biology
#22
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,673 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 61.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 89,273 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.